Thursday, 16 July 2009

America's Obsession with Guns Sinks to New Low...

You couldn't make this shit up.

Registered gun owners in Arizona and Tennessee now have the right (and I use that word loosely) to have concealed firearms on their person in bars or restaurants that serve booze.

Please feel free to read that again and wonder if someone in legislative power has not lost their freaking mind.

"YEEHAR! I'm gonna' shoot me some coon or beaner but not not until I've downed these nine beers and hit my kids for being toothless, dumb, cracker bits of shit!"

Guns aren't a great idea in the first place and why America has a problem with the consistent and painful mis-reading of the Second Amendment I've no idea, clearly many, many people have no fucking clue as to what a militia is. Far too many asshats take that to mean that each individual is a militia and you can stock up with all the weapons you want. Whatever...

Well now you can arm yourself and get so drunk you can't feel your hands, before firing some rounds from your cannon.

Seriously, the US has been stricken with shootings, three massacres this year alone and rights for gun owners just seems to get more and more liberal (in the worse sense) so that soon, we may face total deregulation.

As a footnote, it seems one area the NRA is not having much joy is the right to carry concealed firearms on university campuses, no idea why that's proving a hard sell, it's not as if America has had lots of shootings in educational environments...

Oh wait!

15 comments:

  1. "YEEHAR! I'm gonna' shoot me some coon or beaner but not not until I've downed these nine beers and hit my kids for being toothless, dumb, cracker bits of shit!" -
    Actually, a concealed carry permit holder is not allowed to drink at all in the bar if they are carrying. They lose their permit if they do. The bar can post a sign next to their license prohibiting weapons and a permit holder must abide by that.

    The real problem is that routine issuance of concealed weapons permits requires everyone else to just assume anyone with a pistol is legal. How often can you see someone packing and call the cops? You will very quickly acquire a new friend who wants to go hunting with you, so he can Cheney you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While guns are evil, etc. is a wonderful argument and before 19th October 2008 I would agree with you wholeheartedly, there's something very attractive about being armed and having the right to defend your property from those who want to take it away from you.

    If the laws of America had been applied to this fair isle just for ten minutes at 3.15am on 19th October 2008, there would have been two dead coons (your parlance, not mine) at my feet and a smoking gun. The police would have patted me on my head and thanked me for doing my civil duty for taking these ne'er-do-wells out of circulation.

    But alas, we live in pissy Britain where law and order no longer exists and if you are a scumbag you can pretty well do what you want until the rozzers finally wake up and feel your collar. But then there's no real chance that you'll get a sentence, unless you do something really like drop an empty crisp packet on the floor. Gah!

    Give me the guns and I'll show you justice!!!

    (Sorry, had a really shit day)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bud:

    thanks for that, spoils my joke but means I'm more educated on the facts.

    Darren:

    I must confess, I read you comment and winched a bit, but I know you've had a hard time of it.

    Guns ain't the answer to your worries though comrade.

    ReplyDelete
  4. One of my favourite captions in the Onion: "4 Year Old Exercises 2nd Amendment Right." above a photo of a child with a gun and a shot child.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I never understood the obsession with guns. I guess it is a cultural thing. All I know is that all other countries are doing very well without them!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ellie:

    It won't be long, America seems to swing closer to satire the longer it goes on.

    Mohamed:

    Indeed, but the cultural premise is a flawed one I think.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If a burglar comes into my house in the dead of night, I should have the right to blow his fucking head off. A country in which the citizens are completely disarmed and the state has a monopoly of force is not a free country. Switzerland is piled high with guns and yet you don't hear about many schools shootings. Before the 1920s this country had no restriction on guns and you didn't hear about any school shootings. You know why? because guns aren't the problem. The problem is immoral people. You have to be an immoral person to pull a trigger on an innocent person.

    Besides if campuses allowed students that carried guns the maniacs might have been apprehended. So that argument is a load of bollocks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Evelyn, thanks for stopping by.

    I must say that it's clear you're a fan of guns and seem pretty determined to justify their use no matter what the situation or how terrible the implications.

    As for the right to shoot someone else dead, violence begets violence, an increase in people carrying guns means an increase in the use of guns.

    As for your definition of a free country, sorry I don't buy it, that's all a bit uni-bomber for my liking.

    As for immoral people being the problem rather than guns, perhaps but best to keep guns out of untrained hands full stop, because even in trained hands they are a deadly and mistake laden thing.

    Immoral and innocent by the way are moot points open to judgement with too much subjectivity in them for my mind.

    As for the disgusting logic that if students are allowed to be armed on campus, university shooting could be stopped, I can see now why the NRA has so much success because if idiot logic like that cuts the mustard, perhaps some people deserve to get shot.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If a burglar comes into my house in the dead of night, I should have the right to blow his fucking head off.
    You can try. But you'd more likely already be dead. If I was a burglar and I knew you were heavily armed, my first action would be to eliminate the threat (i.e. you). Shouldn't be that hard really, since I would be prepared for just that situation, and can attack at a time of my choosing. Sooner or later you'll have to sleep. Or are you running an armed camp with lookouts and 24/7 guards on duty? Even then, will your walls withstand ordnance?

    A country in which the citizens are completely disarmed and the state has a monopoly of force is not a free country.
    Which freedom is missing? The freedom to shoot anyone you choose? Or the freedom to swagger around with your six guns? In places where guns are completely banned, anyone found with one is usually shot on sight by the police. There is no need to ask if they have a permit then.

    Switzerland is piled high with guns and yet you don't hear about many schools shootings.
    That's because everyone of military age has a rifle, but only a small number of bullets that they have to account for. They don't see them yodeling in the mountains and firing off rounds for emphasis.

    Before the 1920s this country had no restriction on guns and you didn't hear about any school shootings.
    That's because you have already decided your position and won't look at contrary information. Guns before the 1920s were WWI vintage, bulky and inaccurate. In the 1920s, the preferred method of school killings was bombs.

    You know why? because guns aren't the problem. The problem is immoral people. You have to be an immoral person to pull a trigger on an innocent person.
    And if you don't have a gun you'll be able to do a lot less damage before you are put in the loony bin.

    Besides if campuses allowed students that carried guns the maniacs might have been apprehended.
    Which maniacs? The school killers? The ones wearing Kevlar vests and carrying Uzis? Should the students carry Uzis too? Or perhaps the students should all carry flame throwers, maybe they can stop the school killer with the bazooka.

    Or perhaps you are referring to the concealed carry maniacs who shoot kids for their ipods? How many CCW carriers are involved in "accidents" or shoot someone "because I thought he was drawing"?

    You see, whatever level of arms you think everyone should carry, the bad guys can always get a bigger one. Then you have exactly the same situation as today, except escalated so minor mistakes result in a lot more dead.

    So that argument is a load of bollocks.
    No, your argument fails, because you think arming everyone will make things different. It will only make mistakes and altercations more deadly. For every kid that used to go home with a bloody nose, now you'll have one shot dead and another with gunshot wounds.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think we should take a look at the second Amendment and interpret the way the Founding Fathers would have interpreted it. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So lets break it down the word regulated in the time period of the Revolution meant well trained and well disciplined i believe Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29 clearly show what they meant by regulated. Next the word Militia, from what you said in the your article at the top of the paper I would have to say your definition of the word is quite wrong. The word Militia means a force of armed civilians. So if the civilians have no firearms how can the Militia defend the security of the free State. Your own link to the Second Amendment proves it. There is says that the Court ruled that this right is not based on membership in a militia and is an individual right. Then further on in the 2nd Amendment they make it clear again (just in case people couldn't figure out that the militia is made of armed civilians) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. So that says that the people not the state or the Federal government have the right to bear arms. And in my view has already been infringed on in far to many ways, Because SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED seems pretty clear. So any "common sense" gun law is an infringement. Meaning any gun law is unconstitutional no matter how small or large. But on to your whole article. What i got out of it was that you believe if we pass CCW laws, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender benders, in bars, etc. And that we need to keep guns off of the streets and if doing that saves one life, it would be worth it. But from everything I have read about the states that pass these laws none of them have experienced what you describe, but that is not important. The important thing is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than anything else why don't we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the tech to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound? I look forward to your response.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hello Gumby, you're clearly part of the movement to keep perpetuating the myth of the Second Amendment.

    Your argument falls at the very beginning with this phrase:

    "I think we should take a look at the second Amendment and interpret the way the Founding Fathers would have interpreted it."

    Here in lays the problem, the presumption of what was meant. This is not a basis of a rational argument, it is purely subjective and thus, not built on firm foundations.

    More crucially, the US is wracked by murders, death and violence, one of the reasons for this is the prevalence of guns.

    America doesn't need everyone owning a firearm, it should be stronger than that.

    Here's hoping.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I would very much like to know what the myth of the second Amendment is. I admit i could have worded this better, "I think we should take a look at the second Amendment and interpret the way the Founding Fathers would have interpreted it." It should have been worded I think we should take a look at the second Amendment and read it the way the founding fathers would have meant it to be read. But either way I word it from what you say it is still not built on firm foundations. So if you say that it should not be read the way the Founding Fathers meant it to be read, then what was the point of them writing it. Isn't that the point of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution based on how the Founding Fathers wrote it. Not based on their own interpretations in reading it. The main point of that is because the meaning of words change over time so you must interpret the document as it would have been by the Founding Fathers. Therefore it is based on very firm foundations.

    As for the US being "wracked by murders, death and violence, one of the reasons for this is the prevalence of guns." The problem here is you think that taking away guns (if that somehow did happen the law abiding citizen might turn his in but the criminal will not." will stop the violence and death. For the law abiding citizen a firearm is an equalizer without it the people who would stand up against violence and death when it is staring them in the face would be unable to. The firearm allows the weak to stand up to the strong who would be able to force there will on the weak. Without his pistol the 80 year old man would not have been able to shoot and kill the criminal who entered his house while his wife and Grandson were inside (this did happen here is the link http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/would-be-burglar-shot-to-death-by-west-side-resident.html)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gumby:

    I'll be knocking this on the head soon, you're pro-gun, a position as utterly craven and alien to me that, to even try and transfer myself into your position, leaves me cold.

    Guns have no place in a decent, advanced, intelligent society.

    The myth of the Second Amendment is that it means every American has the right to carry a gun.

    That is not the case.

    No one, I'm afraid, can get into the head of the Founding Fathers, they were an odd bunch of people whose values are very different from modern America's values.

    So your first error is to climb into their heads and the second is to imagine that they wanted the US to be wracked with guns that lead to high murder counts, a huge prison population and a loss of life on a grand scale. More crucially, the founding fathers were a humanist and enlightened bunch, I can't imagine for one minute they'd want Americans to be shooting each other to shit but rather wanted their foundling nation, under siege from the old overlord, to be able to defend itself.

    Hence militia.

    The Second Amendment needs no interpretation, as my blog post says, a militia is not every American having the right to carry a gun, or in many cases, a machine gun.

    You speak of taking away Americans guns, I have no doubt, based on every other nation where guns are tightly regulated and not seen as a right, that violent crime would drop, as would the murder rate. It is not rocket science is it?

    In Europe access to guns is very limited, hence we do not suffer anywhere near the rate of violence, murder and crime that you chaps do.

    All gun-nuts use the idea of defending their home from attackers as an excuse.

    What do you think the rest of us do here in Europe?

    Firstly, guns are less prevalent and to use one is a social taboo incurring heavy penalties and secondly, because of the lack of guns we don't need to defend ourselves with even more guns.

    I can't put it any clearer than that.

    We're done here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Also, to be clear, God has nothing to do with it either.

    ReplyDelete

Please do not be under the misapprehension that this blog has a laissez-faire comments policy where commenters can get away with whatever they want to say on account of their ‘freedom of speech’.

Blurred Clarity has a stringent comments policy. So anything off-topic, diversionary, trollish, abusive, misogynist, racist, homophobic or xenophobic will be deleted.

Cheers duckies.